KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_sock puppet]

That the A&G therefore constitute some form of "substitution cipher" whereby these pre-existing English texts were to be rendered in something along the lines of a "pure language cipher" (consistent with their notions, valid or otherwise, of what "pure language" meant) is an important component of my explanation of their purpose, but the origins of the characters they used in these "cipher keys" is entirely irrelevant to the underlying explanation I propose, and is entirely secondary to the thesis, as I expressed it above.

In your FAIR presentation, you cited in support of your cipher theory the presence of non-Egyptian characters in the A&G. You explained that some of these non-Egyptian characters were taken from the Masonic cipher (with roots going back to the Knights Templar). You have said and/or posted that Smith, Phelps and other scribes knew these characters were non-Egyptian, and therefore their use of them in the A&G is indicative that their inclusion of these characters in the A&G signifies that they were not attempting to create a key to unlock ancient Egyptian language, but some other purpose--which you posit to be an enciphering tool, into the 'pure ancient language'.

Now, however, you claim "the origins of the characters they used in these "cipher keys" is entirely irrelevant to the underlying explanation I propose". Your house of cards is collapsing, Will.

[_William Schryver]

That the A&G therefore constitute some form of "substitution cipher" whereby these pre-existing English texts were to be rendered in something along the lines of a "pure language cipher" (consistent with their notions, valid or otherwise, of what "pure language" meant) is an important component of my explanation of their purpose, but the origins of the characters they used in these "cipher keys" is entirely irrelevant to the underlying explanation I propose, and is entirely secondary to the thesis, as I expressed it above.

In your FAIR presentation, you cited in support of your cipher theory the presence of non-Egyptian characters in the A&G. You explained that some of these non-Egyptian characters were taken from the Masonic cipher (with roots going back to the Knights Templar). You have said and/or posted that Smith, Phelps and other scribes knew these characters were non-Egyptian, and therefore their use of them in the A&G is indicative that their inclusion of these characters in the A&G signifies that they were not attempting to create a key to unlock ancient Egyptian language, but some other purpose--which you posit to be an enciphering tool, into the 'pure ancient language'.

Now, however, you claim "the origins of the characters they used in these "cipher keys" is entirely irrelevant to the underlying explanation I propose". Your house of cards is collapsing, Will.

Whatever.

All you've done is underscore why it is impossible to have substantive discussions about serious topics on this message board. This board is merely a place where exmormons congregate to reinforce each other's rationale for rejecting Mormonism. That will never change.

I welcome you and anyone else to address my arguments in a scholarly venue. That's the only place I will argue these things henceforth.

[_sock puppet]

That the A&G therefore constitute some form of "substitution cipher" whereby these pre-existing English texts were to be rendered in something along the lines of a "pure language cipher" (consistent with their notions, valid or otherwise, of what "pure language" meant) is an important component of my explanation of their purpose, but the origins of the characters they used in these "cipher keys" is entirely irrelevant to the underlying explanation I propose, and is entirely secondary to the thesis, as I expressed it above.

In your FAIR presentation, you cited in support of your cipher theory the presence of non-Egyptian characters in the A&G. You explained that some of these non-Egyptian characters were taken from the Masonic cipher (with roots going back to the Knights Templar). You have said and/or posted that Smith, Phelps and other scribes knew these characters were non-Egyptian, and therefore their use of them in the A&G is indicative that their inclusion of these characters in the A&G signifies that they were not attempting to create a key to unlock ancient Egyptian language, but some other purpose--which you posit to be an enciphering tool, into the 'pure ancient language'.

Now, however, you claim "the origins of the characters they used in these "cipher keys" is entirely irrelevant to the underlying explanation I propose". Your house of cards is collapsing, Will.

Whatever.

All you've done is underscore why it is impossible to have substantive discussions about serious topics on this message board. This board is merely a place where exmormons congregate to reinforce each other's rationale for rejecting Mormonism. That will never change.

I welcome you and anyone else to address my arguments in a scholarly venue. That's the only place I will argue these things henceforth.

So it is not scholarly to examine and challenge the 'evidences' that the promoter of a theory has cited in support of his theory?

Please, explain how this is beyond the scope of scholarly.

[_CaliforniaKid]

You've still failed to answer my question: assuming (for the sake of argument, since I don't concede the point) that all of what you're saying is true, how does this negatively affect my theses?

(Hint: it doesn't.)

You're right. It doesn't, because your theory was never really based on evidence anyway. Long after all evidence is swept away, faith in the holy cipher theory remains.

[_William Schryver]

You've still failed to answer my question: assuming (for the sake of argument, since I don't concede the point) that all of what you're saying is true, how does this negatively affect my theses?

(Hint: it doesn't.)

You're right. It doesn't, because your theory was never really based on evidence anyway. Long after all evidence is swept away, faith in the holy cipher theory remains.

Clever in a banal sort of way, and yet still evasive.

As for the "holy cipher theory" (as you so denigratingly have termed it) I will confess this much (and this is a direct citation of something I just sent to a critic who posts regularly on this message board):

Unfortunately, and I suppose I must take some responsibility for this, for not having explained things as well as I could have, my “cipher” explanation for the purpose of the KEP has been misunderstood by both friend and foe alike. Not all, mind you. But far too many. I will be conscious of that as I continue to prepare my formal articles for print. Suffice it to say (as I did several times in my presentation, but it was apparently not sufficient to overcome the “sensational” aspect of the “Knights Templar” cipher angle) that I don’t believe the brethren in Kirtland would have considered the A&G a “cipher key.” They wouldn’t have called it that, and they really didn’t attempt to use it like that. It merely has the “effective function” of a substitution cipher in that they were taking pre-existing English texts and “translating” them in a direction opposite of that supposed for the past forty years.

Was there an underlying motivation at work to “encipher” or “hide” these things? Most definitely. It manifests itself in many other things going on Kirtland at precisely this point in time. But it is their other interest in the notion of “pure language,” wedded to this desire to encipher what were perceived as especially “sacred” or “sensitive” revelations, that needs to be explored/explained better than I did in the 50 minutes allotted to me at the FAIR conference.

Anyway, I will be careful to clarify my meaning beyond any reasonable misunderstanding in the future.

As for the "evidence" supporting my arguments--well, given the 50 minutes allotted me, I feel like I was able to present quite an impressive quantity of it. Even so, having now shared the bulk of my research products (i.e. "evidence") with several selected individuals, I am convinced, and I have also already convinced enough other people (people eminently qualified to make an informed judgment) such that it has confirmed my conviction that it will be rather academic to conclusively prove my primary thesis as I expressed it in August (and which I have just cited above).

I will look forward with great anticipation to the efforts of you, Metcalfe, and others, to contradict that thesis. I am confident it will prove to be the means by which your credibility in these matters will be forever reduced to disrepute.

[_beastie]

The problem is that you all are just simple-minded fundamentalists. You don't understand, for example, that when Will said:

These men were not focused on translating the papyri at all. One of the keys to this conclusion was my discovery that of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri!

he really meant:

These men were not focused on translating the papyri at all. One of the irrelevant trivia not related at all to this conclusion was my discovery that of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri!

[_William Schryver]

beastlie (quoting from my FAIR presentation):

These men were not focused on translating the papyri at all. One of the keys to this conclusion was my discovery that of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri!

I have never wavered once from supporting this statement. It is, in fact, demonstrably true.

Of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri. This was one of the keys to my conclusion that these men were not focused on translating the papyri. And there has yet to be a single argument made, nor a shred of evidence adduced, to disprove what I wrote.

Even so, as I have emphasized repeatedly, this undeniably demonstrable fact is irrelevant to my primary thesis.

I remain utterly mystified as to why this is proving to be such a difficult concept to grasp for you and others.

[_beastie]

Of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri. This was one of the keys to my conclusion that these men were not focused on translating the papyri. And there has yet to be a single argument made, nor a shred of evidence adduced, to disprove what I wrote.

Even so, as I have emphasized repeatedly, this undeniably demonstrable fact is irrelevant to my primary thesis.

I remain utterly mystified as to why this is proving to be such a difficult concept to grasp for you and others.

Perhaps it would help demystify the situation if you were to understand that we mere mortals rely on commonly accepted definitions of words. We fundamentalist creatures intuit that your use of KEY can only mean this:

A vital, crucial element.

because the other definitions certainly don't fit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Key

So which is it? Is the fact that some characters were not Egyptian a vital, crucial element in your theory, or is it irrelevant? It can't be both, unless you're living in your own private make-believe world.

[_William Schryver]

Of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri. This was one of the keys to my conclusion that these men were not focused on translating the papyri. And there has yet to be a single argument made, nor a shred of evidence adduced, to disprove what I wrote.

Even so, as I have emphasized repeatedly, this undeniably demonstrable fact is irrelevant to my primary thesis.

I remain utterly mystified as to why this is proving to be such a difficult concept to grasp for you and others.

Perhaps it would help demystify the situation if you were to understand that we mere mortals rely on commonly accepted definitions of words. We fundamentalist creatures intuit that your use of KEY can only mean this:

A vital, crucial element.

because the other definitions certainly don't fit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Key

So which is it? Is the fact that some characters were not Egyptian a vital, crucial element in your theory, or is it irrelevant? It can't be both, unless you're living in your own private make-believe world.

One last time, and then never again:

This was one of the keys to my conclusion that these men were not focused on translating the papyri. And there has yet to be a single argument made, nor a shred of evidence adduced, to disprove what I wrote.

Now, with that said, the thesis of my presentation, The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, precisely as I articulated it, is:

I shall attempt today to establish the following thesis, expressed in two parts:

[Part 1] The explanations contained in the Alphabet documents are dependent on a pre-existing text of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham. This dates the reception of the translation of these chapters to the period between July 4 and July 17, 1835, which is when the Alphabet project was commenced.

[Part 2] The greatly expanded character explanations contained in the Grammar documents are manifestly dependent not only on the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham, but also on the remainder of the revealed Book of Abraham, as well as the explanations to Facsimile #2. This roughly dates the reception of the translation of these things to a period between late 1835 and early 1836.

This thesis expresses what I would like to term the “essential elements of understanding” in respect to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

The two things (one in blue, the other in green) are not related to one another.

Ciao ...

[_sock puppet]

You've still failed to answer my question: assuming (for the sake of argument, since I don't concede the point) that all of what you're saying is true, how does this negatively affect my theses?

(Hint: it doesn't.)

You're right. It doesn't, because your theory was never really based on evidence anyway. Long after all evidence is swept away, faith in the holy cipher theory remains.

Clever in a banal sort of way, and yet still evasive.

As for the "holy cipher theory" (as you so denigratingly have termed it) I will confess this much (and this is a direct citation of something I just sent to a critic who posts regularly on this message board):

Unfortunately, and I suppose I must take some responsibility for this, for not having explained things as well as I could have, my “cipher” explanation for the purpose of the KEP has been misunderstood by both friend and foe alike. Not all, mind you. But far too many. I will be conscious of that as I continue to prepare my formal articles for print. Suffice it to say (as I did several times in my presentation, but it was apparently not sufficient to overcome the “sensational” aspect of the “Knights Templar” cipher angle) that I don’t believe the brethren in Kirtland would have considered the A&G a “cipher key.” They wouldn’t have called it that, and they really didn’t attempt to use it like that. It merely has the “effective function” of a substitution cipher in that they were taking pre-existing English texts and “translating” them in a direction opposite of that supposed for the past forty years.

Was there an underlying motivation at work to “encipher” or “hide” these things? Most definitely. It manifests itself in many other things going on Kirtland at precisely this point in time. But it is their other interest in the notion of “pure language,” wedded to this desire to encipher what were perceived as especially “sacred” or “sensitive” revelations, that needs to be explored/explained better than I did in the 50 minutes allotted to me at the FAIR conference.

Anyway, I will be careful to clarify my meaning beyond any reasonable misunderstanding in the future.

As for the "evidence" supporting my arguments--well, given the 50 minutes allotted me, I feel like I was able to present quite an impressive quantity of it. Even so, having now shared the bulk of my research products (i.e. "evidence") with several selected individuals, I am convinced, and I have also already convinced enough other people (people eminently qualified to make an informed judgment) such that it has confirmed my conviction that it will be rather academic to conclusively prove my primary thesis as I expressed it in August (and which I have just cited above).

I will look forward with great anticipation to the efforts of you, Metcalfe, and others, to contradict that thesis. I am confident it will prove to be the means by which your credibility in these matters will be forever reduced to disrepute.

And like any good presenter, I am sure Will that in the confines of that 50 minutes you only presented your strongest evidences and arguments for your cipher theory. Because certainly a fine, upstanding Mormon defending the faith would not be so deceptive and misleading of his fellow believers and critics alike as to throw a sucker punch.

What I find interesting is that you've only chosen to 'share' your other evidence--that which was not the highlighted evidence you touched on in your 50 minutes at FAIR--with Skousen and other LDS believers. If you want to see if that dog will hunt, why not share it here and let it be tested by those that are not already in the tank?